Cable, satellite, Netflix, etc., are most certainly NOT content providers. They are access providers. Content providers are the like of Warner Brothers, Disney, Universal, NBC, CBS, ABC, and etc.

Access providers charge money for providing you access to contents. Apple's app store work exactly the same way except they managed to charge the content providers instead of the consumers.

The only reason you find it hard to understand in this case is Apple is both hardware maker and the access provider. Think if DishNetwork makes your TV, and still charge you money to watch it, you may have the same confusion.

Yea it is confusing. They are saying that my Sony TV(bad choice) should be able to charge a fee to Comcast for Comcast cable sending content through the TV, but not to Time/Warner etc. That makes no sense. (think basic internet neutrality issues)

However, if Sony wants to charge Netflix a fee for hosting a Netflix app on the TV... and that fee was a % cut of revenue etc... well, they have the right. This is probably how Apple views it...$$$$(think premium content etc).

Muddled enough?

Competition, we (the consumers) need 'good' competition.

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.

Right now this is of concern but of no reason to panic. If they start pulling already approved apps like kindle, nook, or google books, then it will be time to chastise them.

Agreed.

When people bought an iPad/iPhone they accepted the terms that Apple offered. Some users may not have understood the details pre-purchase, however, most on this forum were reasonably well informed prior to making their purchase.

The obvious restrictions with iOS devices are that they only allow certain file types, have no user accessible file system and require iTunes/App Store to transfer files to an from them. If you agree with that scenario then all is good with the Apple walled garden. If you decide that you no longer want to abide by Apple's rules, then you can jailbreak or buy a different device.

If Apple changes the rules and pisses off enough people then they will lose market share and mind share. The Apple think tank has already given due consideration to everything average joe user can possibly think of, off the top of his head, and then spout out in a web forum.

The Sony PR said the app was designed like the Android app, which exits the app to purchase.
WE have a screenshot (from the iPhone app) showing the purchasing in Safari.

As to why Sony would add to their iPhone app only a self designed in-app purchasing mechanism which would be in breach of the guidelines as they were then policed, I leave as an excercise to the user.

( hint: They didnt)

Not true.

The Sony app uses WebKit to do in-app purchases. It doesn't kick you out to Safari like the Kindle app does. That's the difference. Sony violated the rule as it already stands. This is not a new interpretation at all.

Apple’s made no change to its App Store Guidlines, it’s simply enforcing a rule that’s been in them all along: apps that offer purchases elsewhere must support in-app purchases as well. “We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines,” company spokesperson Trudy Miller told me. “We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase.”

Despite what she is saying that is a change in guidelines. As opposed to what people are saying here, it seems that you have to offer an in-app purchasing now ( re-directing to the website is not enough). That means Kindle need to update next rev.

My app re-directed. We are still in appeal. Lets see if they accept purchasing on the website getting into the app, they were unclear in the rejection.

if that is all it is, it is not a big deal. It is, however, a change in the guidelines.

The Sony app uses WebKit to do in-app purchases. It doesn't kick you out to Safari like the Kindle app does. That's the difference. Sony violated the rule as it already stands. This is not a new interpretation at all.

Apple’s made no change to its App Store Guidlines, it’s simply enforcing a rule that’s been in them all along: apps that offer purchases elsewhere must support in-app purchases as well. “We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines,” company spokesperson Trudy Miller told me. “We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase.”

So they need to have an option for in-app purchasing. What's the big deal about it?

Wow, it only took a few short years for Apple to become completely evil. If this turns out to be true, I will never buy another iPad again. I use my Kindle and Nook apps all the time. If Apple shuts them out, I will shut Apple out forever.

So yeah. Were these apps the only reason you bought the iPad in the first place, then your statement of intent makes sense. Otherwise you need to explain how finally enforcing compliance with a long-standing requirement to be an app on the iOS platform is "completely evil".

Given the overhead of running the curated App Store, and the low amount of revenue actually realized against these costs, why is this completely evil? On the flip side, if you are only using those two apps you potentially could have saved yourself some money and bought a Nook and a Kindle instead of the iPad. In which case you are a temporary customer anyway and the logic of you shutting Apple forever (which must be driving some heavy soul-searching in One Infinite Loop right now) is moot at best.

None of you have even the slightest clue. Apple is not about allow an app to become a successful revenue stream unto itself, without getting their due cut.

Anyone who wants to profit from Apples success, should pay the 30% cut, and be happy for the opportunity. Sony was hoping to sneak the app in for free, and get 100% of the profits from Apple customers. Makes no difference what App you're using, you're on APPLE's platform. Want access to a few hundred million customers with zero effort? Pay the damn 30% and stfu.

Otherwise, you can go somewhere else. iOS isn't starving for content in any way. To profit on this platform is a privilege, and Apple doesn't ask for ANYTHING that any reasonable retailer wouldn't also. That's what kills me about businesses and developers screaming bitching trying to avoid Apples cut. They're a business for crying out loud. The App Store is a retail outlet!!! Grow TFU!

+100 - I was about to hit the ceiling here... thinking that there was not even one voice of common sense and reason among the posters here!

Props go out to the Prof. as well. Geez! Who let the grade-schoolers lose here today?!

Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member

+100 - I was about to hit the ceiling here... thinking that there was not even one voice of common sense and reason among the posters here!

Props go out to the Prof. as well. Geez! Who let the grade-schoolers lose here today?!

What should iTunes pay to Windows? 30%?

The only grade schoolers here are the Apple Fanatics. That poster is happy to have less content on his owned device because Apple "doesnt ask for anything that any retailer would do" even though in these cases it is not a retailer.

Are you serious? My God, I can't understand so much blindless and fanaticism.

Ain't you guys the one who love "option" so much? Now Apple require one and you're pissed. Pathetic!

Get real! If the price is the same people would buy in-app and poor Amazon will lose 30%. Too bad, eh? If in-app is more expensive, people would take extra step, like they already did, to go through Safari.

Quite simply, Apple has a conflict of interest here. They say they want to provide a platform, and yet they also want to sell you the content on that platform. They provide a phone saying it is yours, but won't allow you to do anything with it unless you pay them.

This will, sadly, spur on the jailbreaking crowd, and push people to Android. iPhone leaves you a prisoner to Apple. It's a very nice device, but you're still held at ransom to Apple.

People here are asking why Apple should be forced to put this on their platform? Because your iPhone is owned by you. You have the right to choose the software you put on it.

I, as a developer, no longer buy the bull that is spouted as "protecting customers from viruses" - if that was the case then Apple would simply vet applications, sign those that don't break the rules, offer the option of their store or otherwise, and with Apple's signing allow distribution however the developer wants.

But let's stop deceiving ourselves: This really isnt a platform. It's Apple's way of controlling every part of this device, even when they don't own it. You do.

And before you claim otherwise, I am generally an Apple fanboy and an iPhone Developer who has, until now, always supported Apple.

I really enjoy seeing devs contribute here, which apps do you have in the App Store - I would like to see what your handiwork looks like!

As to your comment, there is nothing preventing me from downloading an eBook from ANY source and loading it into iTunes to put into iBooks. So the content limit argument is a bit overwrought. So perhaps a different example would be in order. My own past dev work required me to comply with whatever terms our agreement contained, and I did so or did not dev for the platform. These are simple issues to resolve, without resorted to hyperbole or predicting a bleak and unrewarding future.

I look forward to seeing what you have worked on out in the App Store!

Ain't you guys the one who love "option" so much? Now Apple require one and you're pissed. Pathetic!

Get real! If the price is the same people would buy in-app and poor Amazon will lose 30%. Too bad, eh? If in-app is more expensive, people would take extra step, like they already did, to go through Safari.

And you're still clutching at straws. Life is great, isn't it?

At 30% Amazon will leave. All that Apple are doing for that extortionate theft is a credit card transation. Which I think Amazon can do itself.

So they are not quite banned, but will leave if most people hit the Buy In App option. Which they will do, as it makes no sense to leave an app to buy, if you can buy within. Of course there could be a price differential in the buttons. Chances of APple allowing that = 0.

It remains to be seen whether Apple stay at 30% for In-App content where they are not hosting the conent. I suspect they wont.

I really enjoy seeing devs contribute here, which apps do you have in the App Store - I would like to see what your handiwork looks like!

As to your comment, there is nothing preventing me from downloading an eBook from ANY source and loading it into iTunes to put into iBooks. So the content limit argument is a bit overwrought. So perhaps a different example would be in order. My own past dev work required me to comply with whatever terms our agreement contained, and I did so or did not dev for the platform. These are simple issues to resolve, without resorted to hyperbole or predicting a bleak and unrewarding future.

I look forward to seeing what you have worked on out in the App Store!

When he posts his stuff, can we have a look at what you produced today? Burgers, or French Fries?

None of you have even the slightest clue. Apple is not about allow an app to become a successful revenue stream unto itself, without getting their due cut.

Only applies where the App Store is set up to provide the item being sold, one which can be used in conjunction with an iOS device. If an app was selling groceries or shoes, Apple would have no reason to restrict in App sales.

Only applies where the App Store is set up to provide the item being sold, one which can be used in conjunction with an iOS device. If an app was selling groceries or shoes, Apple would have no reason to restrict in App sales.

At 30% Amazon will leave. All that Apple are doing for that extortionate theft is a credit card transation. Which I think Amazon can do itself.

So they are not quite banned, but will leave if most people hit the Buy In App option. Which they will do, as it makes no sense to leave an app to buy, if you can buy within. Of course there could be a price differential in the buttons. Chances of APple allowing that = 0.

It remains to be seen whether Apple stay at 30% for In-App content where they are not hosting the conent. I suspect they wont.

I've heard rumors that Apple plans on pulling the plug on YouTube, Ebay, and of all apps, even Safari.

In fact, Steve Jobs is even planning to ban ALL apps after iPad 2... and at the same time shutting down Mac OS for good.

There will be no Lion, or MacBooks, or anything.

And you know what? I would support SJ if he did, you bunch of ungrateful F****s!!!

Step back... and imagine the tech world without his and Apple's innovations and products for a minute.

Suffice it to say, almost without a doubt: there would be no Android, no Win7, no App Stores of any kind, no Music platform that you could depend upon... NO Kindle OR Nook...nada, zilch.

I'll calm down now, since it's obvious that there are a lot of under-age children here, that can't even conceive of a world without a cell phone... let alone an iPhone, or iPad.

Beyond belief that people (children) would agree, that a multi-billion $ conglomerate like Sony should be allowed to "piggy-back" rodeo-style on Apple's devices without paying. That for the price of 2 developers sitting in a room for a month that can't even understand the simple guidelines of creating an App.

Get along now boys and girls... your Galaxy is waiting for you! Roughly 1,5 million still in stock according to other recent headlines regarding conglomerate BS!

Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member

Oh, can you buy an ebook from Fictionwise and put it on iBooks? Really?

I don't know. All of my other sources seem to work fine for my purposes. But here let's let Apple explain it in their own words in a statement to All Things Digital:

Quote:

"We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines," Miller reportedly said. "We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase."

Apple made the statement after it was revealed that the company rejected an e-reader application from Sony. A report from The New York Times indicated that Apple would no longer allow developers to sell content and provide access to purchases outside the iOS App Store.

But Apple's statement on Tuesday would indicate that the company will continue to allow access to those purchases through, for example, a browser -- as long as the content is also made available for purchase within the application itself. That would require changes to some existing applications that offer purchases, such as the Amazon Kindle software.

So ruminate on this for a bit and and then let your naturally suspicious nature run amok. It seems quite clear to me. They are requiring equitability between simply supporting the supplier and supporting both the supplier and Apple upon whose platform the supplier is hosting their app.

[EDIT:] Here let me even provide you the links to AI coverage and the ATD source:

Beyond belief that people (children) would agree, that a multi-billion $ conglomerate like Sony should be allowed to "piggy-back" rodeo-style on Apple's devices without paying. That for the price of 2 developers sitting in a room for a month that can't even understand the simple guidelines of creating an App.

Lol. I love the childish posters calling people childish.

1) If a a multi-billion $ conglomerate like Sony should not be allowed to "piggy-back" rodeo-style on Apple's devices without paying why should iTunes piggy back on Windows?
2) Apple changed the guidelines. They said they didnt, but they did. Now you have to offer in-App purchasing if you also had out of app purchasing. Sony followed the rules as we all understand them. In fact people on here were stating that they must have been rejected because they did not have an external website.

Thats what they had. They also had to add an IAP button. They decided the cost was too high.

I don't know. All of my other sources seem to work fine for my purposes. But here let's let Apple explain it in their own words in a statement to All Things Digital:

So ruminate on this for a bit and and then let your naturally suspoicious nature run amok. It seems quite clear to me. They are requiring equitability between simply supporting the supplier and supporting both the supplier and Apple upon whose platform the supplier is hosting their app.

And why Apple/Sony/put the name you want can have the privilege of getting 30% from something they don't store, don't distribute and don't sell.